we must preach and live by our doctrines, but we must respect others. otherwise they can impose their will and their doctrines on us. we must have freedom for everyone. or we have freedom for no one. thanks for watching. i'm al sharpton. "hardball" starts right now. it's up to the court. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. the history of america is being written tonight. the supreme court of this country heard arguments on whether two people of the same sex should be allowed the public recognition of their marriage. this is not a decision about whether two people of the same gender can be sexually intimate. the highest court decided that matter in lawrence v. the state of texas. decided affirmatively. it's not whether citizens of a

state in question here, california, can be allowed civil unions. they have, as have gay couples in eight other states. no. the matter before the supreme court today is neither about sexual relations nor civil unions. it's about basic human liberty. who you want to be publicly married to. our guests, two men of california who have been at the ramparts of this debate. rob reiner and governor newsom, thank you very much. gavin, thank you for joining us tonight. it seems to me, observers said the court didn't seem to be in a mood so far at least in arguments prepared to give a sweeping ruling on gay marriage that would affect all 50 states. far likely, experts said, based on what the justices said, would be a narrow outcome. focused just on the state of california. that's according to nbc news justice correspondent pete williams, the expert in this field. the likeliest result he said would be one striking down proposition 8 out there. the 2008 ballot initiative in california that banned same-sex marriage.

that would mean allowing marriages to resume in california without setting any legal precedent for the other 49 states and d.c. one of the justices being watched closely today is chief justice john roberts. he showed, well, showed he had sympathy for gay marriage critics in california for the critics this time. listen. >> so it's just about -- it's just about the label in this case? >> the label is -- >> same-sex couples have every other right. it's just about the label. >> the label marriage means something. even our opponents -- >> sure, if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, i suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. that's, it seems to me, what supporters of proposition 8 are saying here. all you're interested in is the label. and you insist on changing the definition of the label. >> wow. gavin newsom. thank you for joining us. >> i didn't get that fully. i was thinking back five years ago when i fell in love, you know, with my wife now, jen. if i sat on my knee and said,

honey, i want to spend the rest of my life with you, will you civil union me? i'd be here with a scar. the point being, that label means a tremendous amount. that symbol, marriage is what it's about. you can't have something else and call it equal. i mean, that's the whole argument against civil unions. they are something else. so with respect to chief justice, i just don't think he gets that. >> that argument was made by our cardinal who asked a small group of journalists. the word gay went from fred astaire gay to having a good time to being a homosexual. words change their meanings. >> to say it has no meaning is really crazy, because it's like saying you have all the rights of a citizen, you just can't be called a citizen. >> yeah. >> that's a big difference. you can vote, you can do -- but you're not a citizen of this country. to say that to a group of people that you do not have the same rights and the same privileges and the same equality under the law is just wrong. >> when did you -- i always figured you to be sort of a classic democrat, unhyphenated,

regular democrat, politically. you're not a lefty. i never thought of you -- although we were both with dean, i think. anyway, didn't seem like a lefty. just anti a stupid war. when did you get into this emotionally? >> i got into this emotionally when proposition 8 passed, because my good friend, chad griffin, who is the president now of the human rights campaign, is a very, very close friend of mine. i love chad griffin. i've worked with him. he is like a son to me. he was 19 years old when i first met him. he was assigned to me to show me around the white house when i was making "american president." and i came -- he ran my foundation for years. we became very, very close. and he is like a son to me. to look him in the eye, he came to me and said, we have to do something now. when i look at him in the eye, i can't look and say, you are less than me, you deserve less than i do. it's like what rob portman said.

he finds out his son is gay. how do you look your son in the eye and say you don't deserve the same rights that i have? and that's when i became involved. >> rob -- >> when you became governor, you became involved as mayor -- >> in 2004. >> to legitimatize the marriages. >> we had 4,036 couples from 46 states and 8 countries who came into san francisco and got married. rob was one of the first people calling in 2004 celebrating that. he's been at it for an even longer period of time. >> yes, i was talking about on this particular case. yes, no, i've been involved. >> let's talk about this judge we're all fascinated with. i've always liked anthony kennedy. because he is in many ways a libertarian and believer in civil liberties. he was the swing justice and always will be, i suppose. he certainly seemed to swing today giving sympathetic statements to both sides of the argument. at one point today he talked about the immediate legal injury being done to children of gay parents, if they lose their parents, as parents. let's listen.

>> there's substantial -- that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. we have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. on the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. there are some 40,000 children in california, according to the red brief, that live with same-sex parents. and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. the voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think? >> well, maybe he thinks. that's the important thing. he's the judge. anyway, kennedy also warned the case was entering unchartered waters. of course, it is. and questioned whether the case should have even reached the supreme court. maybe it's too fertile ground, too early ground for him. but let's listen to his final argument here. >> the problem with the case is

that you're really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into unchartered waters, and you can play with that metaphor. there's a wonderful destination, or there's a cliff, whatever the metaphor is. but you're doing so in a case where the opinion is very narrow, basically that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70% of the way. and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on standing. i just wonder if the case was properly granted. >> here's two options. there's three options, of course. a 50-state basically saying you can't deny the right of a person to marry someone of their own gender. the other option is to say basically if you're going to go to civil unions, you can't deny the label marriage. you can't give all the rights, but deny them the honor or the celebration of the actual relationship publicly. and the first one is the one that looks like he's heading toward, which is to say, you can't take away a right once given.

once recognized, not given, once recognized. in california. >> that was the ruling that the ninth circuit gave. essentially. which is gays and lesbians have the right to be married. proposition 22 was passed, and it was adjudicated at the california supreme court and the california supreme court said that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. that's when gavin started holding wedding ceremonies. and then proposition 8 took away that right that was given by the supreme court. so that's the argument that the ninth circuit gave. >> and, chris, the significance of that, that narrow frame of reference, it was also written, from my perspective, to appeal to justice kennedy who had previously adjudicated in a 6-3 decision writing that majority opinion in the romer versus colorado. >> 40,000 children of same-sex couples in your state. >> it was finally bringing the

human element in this case. we can talk in academic terms. we can talk in legalese. talking about human beings here. to justice kennedy's credit, that was the first time we connected it to what rob and others just mentioned. this is about human dignity, self-worth. this is about human rights, civil rights. to bring the children back in is a good reminder at what's at stake here. it's not just a legal breathe. this is about people. this is the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, mothers and their sons and daughters. >> you've said it. you say it on that promo. i see it all the time on msnbc. the beautiful thing about this country, any time we talk about expanding rights and giving people rights, we do the right thing. >> eventually. >> eventually we do the right thing. because the founders of this country had an idea which is that we should all be considered equal under the law. >> it's a bad word to use in this country, but it's a dialectic at work. there's a constant fight between the old know nothings and the segregationists and the slave owners. then there are the people against the franchising of women, women suffrage for women.

every one of those fights the liberals have won eventually. >> yeah. dr. king says -- >> called progress. >> toward justice. ultimately. >> the opponents of same-sex marriage argue the main thrust of their opposition had to do with regulating procreation and in a nutshell said gay marriage doesn't lead to procreation. straight marriage does. but justice elena kagan asked based on that position what would stop a state from allowing marriage licenses to people too old to have children. which happens all the time now. that led to this exchange. let's listen. >> your honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55 it is very rare that both couple -- both parties to the couple are infertile. and the traditional -- >> no, really, because if a couple -- i can just assure you if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage. >> well, that was a chuckle, but it was a point, governor, which is that not everybody marries

even with the intent of having children. >> no. people that are incarcerated can get married. it's perverse. that's why we got into sterilization tests and whether or not you could sign off and whether or not a couple's sterile or fertile. it's a preposterous argument. fundamentally, that's the only argument they have, that marriage is about an institution, about procreation. we know better. justice kagan made the right point. >> few doubt where justice scalia stands on this issue of gay marriage. today he sparred with attorney ted olson who is representing the two gay couples out in california. who brought the challenge to prop 8. justice scalia asked ted olson when exactly it became constitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. listen to this great typical scalia exchange. >> when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marrying? >> that -- they did not assign a date to it, justice scalia, as you know. but the court decided -- >> i'm not talking about the california supreme court.

i'm talking about your argument. you say it is now unconstitutional. >> yes. >> was it always unconstitutional? >> it was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control. >> when did that happen? >> there's no specific date in time. this is an -- >> how am i supposed to know how to decide a case then? >> because the case that's before you -- >> if you can't give me a date when the constitution changed? >> answer, when did it become unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry? >> the answer is that it was always unconstitutional. just like it was always unconstitutional to deny women the right to vote. just as it was always unconstitutional to have slavery. it was -- >> why did they change the constitution so women could vote then? >> they changed it because they realized that that was an unconstitutional thing. and women fought -- >> it wasn't consistent with our basic principles. >> you've got to remember -- >> right.

>> -- it wasn't that long ago president bush was arguing to change the constitution to write discrimination into it for a reason. there's something apparently about this constitution they find offensive. because it doesn't -- >> what do you make of the answer by ted olson, who's a pretty smart fellow, making this case. he said, it was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is characteristic of individuals they cannot control. remember trent lott saying you have to make a decision? decide whether you're gay or straight. >> it used to be called a disease. >> yeah. >> we've come a long way toward understanding what, you know, who people are and what they are. and as we -- >> okay. tough, you guys are both political in this regard. you're always political. >> wait a second. >> no, you are. i'm not knocking it. it's your profession. if you get a narrow ruling that says, prop 8 has to go, it's unconstitutional because of the children, because it's already been -- those people have already been ruled eligible to marry, you can't take back that right. okay? you don't get the eight, nine states. don't get the 50 states. where does this take this case in the future?

where does it go after this year? >> that means by late june people can legally get married in the state of california which is significant. >> an eighth of the country. >> so that in and of itself is a big thing. this fguy deserves -- >> gay people move to california for sure. >> potentially. also it creates another case law and then invariably, this is going to be the challenge for this court. there's going to be other cases that will invariably make their way to the supreme court. >> this is progress? >> we did two things. the reason we brought this case was to do two things. one was to prove that prop 8 was unconstitutional. the second thing was to use this as an educational time. an educational moment to let people know that's why lance black who won an oscar for "milk" wrote a play called "eight" which was based on the proceedings that happened in that district court. and if you look at that play, and you -- the more and more you know about the issue, the more and more we see the needle swing. when we started, we were in the 40s.

now we're at 58% with people under the age of 30. >> that's profound. >> 81% believe gays should be allowed to marry. >> it's not right or left anymore. >> amazing development. as we all argue, these are progressive, and in the end the lib rams win. thank you. rob reiner, great man. thank you, governor. we call you governor. some day it'll be fully true. coming up, why gay marriage advocates can't lose. they can win the case at the supreme court or lose it and make those defeats a rallying cry for the gay rights movement. remember, roe v. wade did more to gal ve niz the anti-abortion movement on the other side than anything else. just as issues like gay marriage, guns and immigration have been wedge issues against democrats, look what's happening now. democrats using the same issues to twid rops. if congressman steve king of iowa is worried about losing on the cultural issue, gay marriage, he's got a ready solution for another issue. immigration. build a chinese wall, he says, from texas to california. if the chinese can do it

hundreds of years ago if not thousands he fig you aures we c it now. finally, let me finish with hillary clinton's inevitability and what it means for both parties. and this is "hardball." the place for politics.

so which way does the roberts court lean ideologically? depends who you ask. nearly half of conservatives in a new pew poll says the court is liberal. wow. another 4 in 10 call it middle of the road. only 9% of conservatives say the court is conservative. wow. anyway, among progressives, just the opposite. nearly half of self-described liberals say the roberts court is conservative. 3 in 10 say it's middle of the road. 15% call the court liberal. must be a pretty good court. everybody thinks it's on the other side. we'll be right back. at guy thatt a ham radio in his basement. he can talk to china, mongolia and all the koreas and he eats velveeta shells and cheese. so who are you calling amateur? liquid gold. eat like that guy you know. as your life and career change,

fidelity is there for your personal economy, helping you readjust your retirement plan along the way. rethink how you're invested. and refocus as your career moves forward. wherever you are today, a fidelity ira has a wide range of investment choices to help you fine-tune your personal economy. call today and we'll make it easy to move that old 401(k) to a fidelity no-fee ira. like a squirrel stashes nuts, you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec® liquid gels. nothing starts working faster than zyrtec® at relieving your allergy symptoms for 24 hours. zyrtec®. love the air.

now sandy and i would like to introduce you to our son, two of our sons, spencer and elliot perry. >> hello, my name is spencer perry. this my twin brother, elliot perry.

we're two of chris and sandy's very, very proud sons. on behalf of myself, and my twin brother, i just want to say how incredibly proud we are of our parents. we love them. we love our family. and we look forward to the day when we will be treated equally just like our neighbors' families. thank you so much. >> that's pretty good. welcome back to "hardball." today the plaintiffs in hollingsworth, perry v. perry, more commonly known as the prop 8 case, showed what a family rooted in same-sex marriage actually looks like. it was impossible to miss the love there those two kids had f for their parents, their mothers. political movements in reaction to them. for example, three key supreme court rulings in the 1950s, '60s and '70s had significant influence in building today's republican coalition. take brown versus board of education back in 1954. the civil rights decision helped shift the south to republican party. the 1962 supreme court decision banning organized prayer in

public schools sparked the creation of the moral majority. and roev. wade, of course, in 1973 helped push cultural conservatives to the republican side. given that history, what the supreme court decides on prop 8 and the defense of marriage act as well which will be considered tomorrow, could have political implications stretching far beyond gays and lesbians who want to marry. brian silva. suppose court comes out with a narrow decision. looks like they're headed toward basically shooting down, chopping down, getting rid of prop 8. you can get married in california if you're the same sex. what's that going to -- is that going to energize the right? >> yeah, i think that so many people on the right have already moved into the pro-marriage equality camp that i think that that number of folks -- >> who are these people? >> senator rob portman -- >> you're naming one or two. come on. so many on the right. come on. >> you've got an amicus brief

signed by so many prom nainent republicans they filed with the supreme court. >> which republican candidate last time was for same-sex marriage? >> none of them -- >> which one in history? ever? >> mitt romney i guess at one point in massachusetts was for marriage equality then he was against it. >> see my point? >> yeah. i think the thing is the party is still shifting. whether it starts at the top or starts at the bottom. we're seeing it from the bottom. my home state of new york, four republican state senators came out in favor of marriage equality, helped us pass it two years ago. so we are -- >> how many republican senators are there in the legislature in albany? >> albany, they're the majority. they are at 30-plus, i think. yeah. >> 4 out of 30? >> yeah. >> they got a little boost from andrew. didn't they? >> they did. folks working together. >> bottom line here, you're for marriage equality. >> absolutely. >> is that you don't think the republican party, for example, on their platform next time, when they put a candidate out there, whether it's rand paul or anybody, it could be chris christie, do you think they'll take a position of supportive or somewhat fudging the issue? >> i'm hopeful, i'm hopeful that they will. >> that's true. what's it mean politically? do you think they will? >> i think eventually they will.

>> how about next time? 2016? >> 2016 is a tough call. i don't know. it's hard to look down the road. if the court rules that way, if more states continue -- we're very close in illinois, rhode island, minnesota, delaware. all of these states. >> who would you recommend the next republican candidate for president, he or she, once they're on the platform, nominee, should they support marriage equality? is it smart to echo the democratic nominee, if it's hillary clinton, has already done it? >> i think so. i really think when you look at the age demographics, you know, the folks -- >> 2016. >> yeah. but they're moving up. folks in favor of marriage equality are sticking around. >> do you think this will be a debating issue? let me just tell you how frequently it was recently. 19 -- i'm sorry, i keep saying 19. 20. 2008, 2004. 2004, ohio lost by john kerry. because of a big ballot initiative on the ballot at that time. the voters were being asked to fight to come out for anti same-sex marriage ban. it killed him in that state.

>> absolutely. just until recently, ohio's numbers when it cane to marriage equality were under 50%. just in the past few months, the polls coming out of there are showing it over 50%. >> so it's moving. >> it's moving. you've got a big ground game going on in ohio. a lot of folks working on the issue. >> you're a great promoter. i wish you well. i'm not sure you're right about the republican party. i wish you well. today on "morning joe," nicole wallace, senior adviser to the mccain/palin campaign and former communications director for president george w. bush pointed out as you did, brian, the generational challenge faced by republicans on the issue of gay marriage. nicole supports gay marriage herself. let's listen to her. >> there were a lot of alarming things that happened at cpac. the one happy thing was that they went around trying to find young conservatives who were against gay marriage and they couldn't find any. i mean, even the youngest most rabid, most devoted conservatives see this as an

equal rights issue. >> ralph reed, founder and chairman of the faith and freedom coalition. ralph, thank you for coming on. >> you bet, chris, good to be with you again. >> thank you. i'm just setting it up, what looks to be the direction of the court. perhaps a narrow decision. perhaps just dealing with california. perhaps positively for the pro-choice or the pro same-sex marriage community. how do people on the conservative side of things, you, how will you react to that? what will be your plan? >> well, if that were to happen, and, of course, this is not my first rodeo. i know it's not yours. i don't tend to put a lot of -- lay down a lot of bets on oral arguments. you know, it's very hard to sbrer interpret how the court's going to rule based on the reparte and oral arguments. if they were to do that, chris, i think it would be profoundly disappointing. the people of california voted not once, but twice that they wanted marriage defined between a man and a woman. i think this kind of issue, as we saw with the very polarizing and highly divisive issue of roe v. wade is best left to people

and their elected representatives. it's best left to the congress and the various legislatures. if the people of california want to change their constitution, they can do it at the ballot box. i don't think the supreme court should intervene. but if it were to happen, it would not have any effect in any of the other states. let's be clear. 86% of the american people live in states today that define marriage as between a man and a woman. this is the majority position for the american people. >> well, what you really do understand as well as i do is the way that there's repercussions. the old story was the supreme court follows the election results. the election results often follow the supreme court. people react. most voters vote negatively. that's how they vote. they don't like things, they get out there and vote against them. do you think there'll be -- will you be leading it, perhaps? to try to rectify what you see as a wrong decision? >> well, i think as you pointed out in the earlier segment, chris, it's not so much i want to do it, but the reality is when the supreme court gets over its skis and when it tries to be

the one that is the progenator of significant social change rather than allow it to take change incrementally and gradually with back and forth, maybe with different answers in different states and different communities, i think the problem is whether it was the backlash against engel v. vitale, the school prayer case you mentioned earlier. there was a very interesting cover story on "time" magazine's cover a few weeks ago that pointed out that the roe v. wade actually hurt the pro-choice cause because it's led to this very strong pro-life movement that is restricting abortion on demand in the various legislatures. so i think -- >> i understand begginsberg fro very different angle, she agrees with you. look, you're not going to come out against all landmark decisions. >> no. >> you wouldn't say, for example, we didn't need the separate but equal decision in the brown case in '54. these states were way behind with this separate but equal attitude. didn't that have to happen? by the supreme court?

don't we need leadership from the top on occasion? >> we do, but let's remember that brown v. board was not leading. it was following by 90 years the 14th amendment of the constitution that said that african-americans couldn't be denied equal protection under the law. as you know, there was virtually no enforcement of that by the department of justice after that. so the court had to step in, but even with that court opinion, as it is rightfully honored by all americans today, the fact is, chris, that the real progress, the real progress on breaking down jim crow and creating more equality for men and women of all color, was the civil rights act of '64, voting rights act of '65, and the fair housing act of '68. the reality where the rubber met the road was in passing legislation in legislative chambers and getting them signed by the president. >> you know what, it's interesting you argue this. i think you make a good point. although we may disagree on a

lot of these issues, i think we do. i do think it's always better when the public will coincides with the rights. but sometimes the wub lick will is a little slow. i agree with you on those cases. the civil rights act and voting rights act were powerful because they had the power behind them of both political parties, of lyndon johnson and heavy support by the republican party, by the way, at the time. they were amazingly influential. i also think sometimes the supreme court has to get ahead and has to get ahead early as it did with these early cases. thank you, ralph reed, for coming on "hardball." up next, steve king's great wall of china. this guy, steve king, is something, isn't he? he wants to build a great wall of china along the rio grande. anyway, this is "hardball." the place for politics. [ male announcer ] when it comes to the financial obstacles

military families face, we understand. our financial advice is geared specifically to current and former military members and their families. life brings obstacles. usaa brings retirement advice.

like other precious things that start off white, it yellows over time. when it comes to your smile, if you're not whitening, you're yellowing. crest whitestrips whiten as well as $500 professional treatments. guaranteed. crest 3d white whitestrips.

otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ for current and former military members and their families. get advice from the people who share your values. for our free usaa retirement guide, call 877-242-usaa. back to "hardball."

now to the sideshow. part of the post election republican autopsy released last week by rnc chair reince priebus was about immigration reform. bottom line, republicans need to stop saying things that minority populations find to be out of touch or worse plain offensive. for example, don't compare the fence we could put up at the border to the great wall of china. well, iowa congressman, steve king. have at it. >> we've heard the arguments against the fence. people said, well, you can't build a 2,000 mile long fence. and as if somehow that would be too much of an engineering marvel. i've been over there to take a look at the great wall of china that was built more than 2,000 years ago. and that's 5,500 miles long. you can march armies down the top of it. the japanese did that. so building a fence is not that hard, so i thought i'll show you how to do it. if it's too complicated for our public policy people to get our mind around. >> not so lucky for reince priebus, we could be seeing a

lot more of steve king. think 2014 senate candidate. king told "the des moines register" yesterday, i have never wanted to be the guy who looked back and said woulda, coulda, shoulda. this is by far the most positive kind of opportunity for a senate seat than i'm ever likely to see. up next, once upon a time it was republicans who used wedge issues like gay marriage, guns and immigration against democrats. now the democrats are the ones using those issues to divide republicans. that's ahead right here on "hardball." you're watching it. the place for politics. [ male announcer ] at his current pace,

bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. olay ultra moisture body wash can with more moisturizers than seven bottles of the leading body wash. with ultra moisture your body wash is anything but basic. soft, smooth skin with olay. oh.

let's go. from the crack, off the backboard. [ laughs ] dad! [ laughs ] whoo! oh! you're up! oh! oh! so close! now where were we? ok, this one's good for two. score! [ male announcer ] share what you love with who you love. kellogg's frosted flakes. they're gr-r-eat!

i'm almelissa ray berger. north dakota governor today signed the most restrictive abortion law in the nation. the dow today closed at a record of 14,559.

the s&p came within two points of a new closing high. and the winner of that 3$33 million power ball jackpot will take a lump sum payment of $152 million after taxes. not bad. now back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." culture wedges have long been used by republicans as we know as wedges to divide democrats. in 2004, for instance, republicans placed a gay marriage ban on the ballot in ohio as i said to help get the conservative vote out and it worked. president bush won ohio by two points. as a result, he won that election in 2000. but now -- he won it after the supreme court helped him. now it's the democrats' turn to use wedges, actually, 2004. wedges issues against republicans. politico reports today "the culture wars are back but this time with a significant twist. the left is picking the fights and for the most part enjoying being on the right side of public opinion."

five years after barack obama warned that anxious voters are just clinging to their guns and religion, wedge issues are cutting differently. more to the liking of democrats." wow. i've got our "hardball" strategists here tonight to argue this. former rnc chair, michael steele, an msnbc political analyst. steve elmendorf, a strategist who worked for dick gephardt, john kerry and hillary clinton. none of them actually won in the end. i'm just kidding. you're a very well respected consultant here and leader. let me ask you this. how do you think these issues, democrats are going to use these issues? can they bash a republican for being against same-sex? >> yeah. if you look at the numbers, chris, it's not just young people at 81%. it's young evangelicals are for gay marriage. catholics are for gay marriage. >> conservatives. >> young conservatives are for gay marriage. it's just moving and in the right districts, in a lot of places, it's going to be a big problem. >> how's your party react to that at the convention? do you fudge the issue? i can't see a candidate saying, and we're not going to have any of this damn same-sex marriage either.

you're not going to address it, are you? >> that would make your day if they did. no. you're not going to have that. i was amused by karl rove's musing on the weekend that he could see the 2016 republican nominee, you know, expressing openly his support for gay marriage. i don't believe -- >> that's funny because rove ran that ohio campaign. 2004. >> right. exactly. i don't believe at this point that that is necessarily going to be the case. my caution is this, to the democrats. not that i'm one to caution democrats too much. but, you know, there's one thing to see a poll that says 58% support this, 80% appoint that. that's not necessarily translated into votes yet. and let's just see how this plays out in a ballot box. remember, state legislatures are acting in a way that's consistent with what they're hearing and seeing from their constituencies in their districts. so let's just be a little bit cautious. i take jonathan capehart, our colleague, to heart when he says, you know, let's be cautious in our optimism and enthusiasm here because the supreme court is one thing.

>> i agree. >> the ballot box is something else. >> i want to talk about that. as threatened at the conservatives get in this country, threatened culturally. racially, generationally, everything. they feel more and more the circle the wagon mentality has taken over. they vote. they vote like bandits. right wingers. conservatives. what happens if the party, if your party is successful in establishing its high ground politically on this issue but you scare the low ground people to the point where they all show up next time and they win? >> i think the intensity on this issue is actually much more on the side of gay and lesbian and marriage equality. i think there's a lot of intensity. it's not just that gay people think gay people ought to get married. it's all these progressive -- >> is it a voting issue for them? for gay people? >> i think it's a values issue. i think there's a lot of people, a lot of women who look at republicans who are on the wrong side of this issue and say they don't share my values. >> let's go to fun. now we're going to have dessert. we had our steak. cultural issues are nothing compared to the clintons. let's take a look at former president bill clinton who i am calling the advance man.

yesterday clinton endorse wendy gruel out in los angeles for the mayor's race. he noted her crisis management skills in the early '90s while working at hud during clinton administration. it didn't help the opponent, eric garcetti, a big supporter of barack obama in 2008 against hillary clinton. i think bill noticed. the clintons have long memories. this is not the first time bill backed the democrat in a tough primary with bill or hillary ties. for example, in recent congressional primary races, he endorsed mark kritz in pennsylvania, bill pascerll in new jersey. endorsed former clinton white house staffer sean patrick maloney in new york. the race for pennsylvania attorney general he endorsed clinton supporter kathleen kane over obama endorser patrick murphy. he's rewarding old friends and punishing old rivals. >> we have to have more loyalty in politics. he is supporting the people who helped him. >> to what effect? >> in a lot of cases he's winning. even if he's not winning he's sending a signal. >> why is he doing this? >> because he cares. he cares about -- >> he's setting up the battle. >> he's setting up the battle for hillary in about 18 months

or less. he's making sure that everyone understands exactly they're coming prepared and the thing about the clintons, they don't forget. they have long memories on this. they will exact their pound of flesh, whether $1 million or $10 million, you will pay, my friend. >> this is where it's tough. this is where it's hardball. their attitude, fair enough, it works, i guess. you're with us or against us. if you don't come out for us, for example, altmyer was neutral in that race. didn't help him with them. the clintons want you with them. if you're not with them, you're just dead meat. your thoughts, steve? >> he's the most popular politician in america. >> why don't you answer my question? are you afraid of him? you are. you're squirming. >> i love bill clinton. i love hillary clinton. >> everything they do is right? >> he's a democrat strategist who wants work in 2016. zblefrg they do is right. >> you're made of rubber. it's unbelievable. anyway, as a republican expert, what do you think of this playing tough? the way the clintons are playing

it? they basically probably are going to win the nomination if they played softball. >> yeah, look, i admire -- >> secretary clinton. >> i think it's hardball politics. i think it's smart politics for the clintons to take all the goodwill that's been engendered as a result of -- >> what about loving your enemy? >> loving your enemy? >> you're a seminarian. what about going around saying, i want you, too? >> chris, you're not looking for that kind of blessing in this situation. this is hardball politics. it's real -- >> is it smart? >> i think it's smart. i think the clintons have seen themselves be burned. i think it's smart politics for them to lay down their markers now and see right now who's with them and who's against them. even though the field has not even begun to form. whether it's cuomo or -- >> let's go to why they might calibrate it up a bit, escalate from the beginning. i think hillary clinton, secretary clinton, former senator clinton, former first lady dln clinton always looks at her best when she's talking issues. children, education. things like that. i don't think she's especially great at the hammer and tongue of politics.

the nasty stuff. >> her husband's better. >> yeah. so maybe what they want to do is shorten the field to one or two opponents. not give her any threat. make sure martin o'malley doesn't run against them, make sure joe biden doesn't run against them. make sure andrew doesn't run against them from new york. run against a couple skinny guys who don't mean anything. but you'll win. is that the plan? if bill's tough, i'm arguing, hillary doesn't have to be so tough. >> he's sending a signal -- >> can you answer that question? is that -- >> bill should be the tough guy. he's doing the right thing. >> look, you have -- >> you know what mickey cohen once said? if you have a dog, you don't have to bark. >> you have the right moniker. he's the advance man. >> thank you, guys. michael steele. up next, we all know we live in a polarized time today. you know what? it used to be worse. wait until you hear about the years before world war ii. we're going to talk about that. lindbergh. boy is that a lightning rod. i just said it. charles lindbergh. a lot of people are already listening to that. we'll be right back.

humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely, other humans. which is why at liberty mutual insurance, auto policies come with new car replacement and accident forgiveness if you qualify. see what else comes standard at libertymutual.com. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? [ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never go back to a regular manual brush. its three cleaning zones with dynamic power bristles reach between teeth with more brush movements

to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. and even 76% more plaque than sonicare flexcare in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush. life opens up when you do. just begin with america's favorite soups. bring out chicken broccoli alfredo. or best-ever meatloaf. go to campbellskitchen.com for recipes, plus a valuable coupon. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. well, president obama's made history today in naming a new director of the secret service. julia pierson the first woman in american history to hold that post. pierson is a 30-year vet in the agency. most recently serving as his chief of staff. his choice of her signals the president's intention to change what has been a male-dominated culture recently marked by scandal, you know, back in cardiana? we'll be right back. ♪

if you have high cholesterol, here's some information that may be worth looking into. in a clinical trial versus lipitor, crestor got more high-risk patients' bad cholesterol to a goal of under 100. getting to goal is important, especially if you have high cholesterol plus any of these risk factors because you could be at increased risk for plaque buildup in your arteries over time. and that's why when diet and exercise alone aren't enough to lower cholesterol i prescribe crestor.

[ female announcer ] crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking. call your doctor right away if you have muscle pain or weakness, feel unusually tired, have loss of appetite, upper belly pain, dark urine or yellowing of skin or eyes. these could be signs of rare but serious side effects. is your cholesterol at goal? ask your doctor about crestor. [ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. [ dog ] you know, i just don't think i should have to wait for it! who do you think i am, quicken loans? ♪ at quicken loans, we won't make you wait for it. our efficient, online system allows us to get you through your home loan process fast. which means you'll never have to beg for a quick closing. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. bonkers, look at me when i'm talking to you.

we're back. some people say we live in a time of bitter feuding between right and left on everything from culture issues like gay marriage to taxing and spending. spending and, of course, health care in the months leading up to pearl harbor before world war ii, there was one of most divisive periods in history about whether the u.s. should enter the war. lynn olson chronicles those years in "those angry days." franklin roosevelt was signing a bill in the law that required men between 21 and 45 to sign up for the draft. charles lindbergh, the american hero who became the voice of isolationist america first people was fdr's most famous and prominent critic. libdberg in october 1 940. his plea here is for us to stay

out of war. >> we must enter the wars of europe in order to defend america will be fatal to our nation if we follow it. when men are called upon to fight and die for their country, there must not be even the remotest question of foreign influence. >> what area is foreign influence. that's where he got in trouble, the only people -- it was the madison skwquare garden, and he said that it was the british and jews. he made them sound like some forbes group and that was his crime -- certainly his political crime. >> that was his political downfall, that speech basically did him in in terms of the american people and how they viewed him. >> respectability. >> absolutely. >> and franklin roosevelt, who i have come to admire more as i have gotten older. i came up in ary public i had can family and my dad has strange views. could we have gotten through the

'30s and '40s without him. he was very pro british. >> he was pro brittish. i'm not sure he wanted america to go to war in terms of sending troops. no question, he wanted to save england. he was somewhat cautious and hesitant in 19329 to 1941. he wasn't as bold in terms of foreign policy as he was in domestic policy in the early '30s. >> one of the heroes on the republican side is wendell wilkins. he gave roosevelt the best fight he ever had. and i learned beautiful things about wilke. he supported roosevelt. he could have gone the other way and been isolationist. he supported him on conscription on the draft and after winning in philadelphia, he gave all the assistance he could to national unity. >> it was incredible. he actually did what he thought was right for the country and stood up for the best interests of the country instead of for

himself and for partisan advantage. the republicans -- the republican leaders hated him because of that, because of his support. >> he's like chris christie today? >> even more so. he truly believed we had to save england and he didn't care if it was franklin roosevelt's policy or not. he was going to support it. >> let me ask you about the feelings at the times. did you have people yelling at each other at this time? people when they went to big rallies, america first rallies, nobody realized, screaming we will not go to war. we're being pushed into the war. we had jewish people, and a lot of people worried about what is going on and scared to death. they had begun to do it, and neither the long naives and all the stuff, and it had been evidenced it was heading toward genocide. >> there was enormous divisiveness in this country and it reminds me very much today. those angry days, these angry

days. the country deeply divided politically. >> if we hadn't been attacked by the japanese in december of '41, would we have gone to war? >> that's a really good question. i'm not sure we would have gone to war immediately. i think we would have been drawn into the war eventually. >> how about if germany hadn't declared war on us? would we declare war on them? >> i don't think so, not then. some of roosevelt's advisers wanted him to declare war. and then hitler declared war on us after three very long days. >> thank god. >> it was the stupidest thing he did. >> well, invading russia was -- well, he's the worst. a great writer, and i don't do this a lot. this person can write beautifully and make you love history. and that history about world war

ii will never not be fascinating to me. "those angry days" what we fight about what we really have something to fight about. when we return, let me finish with the inevitability, kind of a jinx. and how she should have made both parties react differently. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. acommitment . and every day since,ment . we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. bp's also committed to america. we support nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. [ male announcer ] how could a luminous protein in jellyfish, impact life expectancy in the u.s., real estate in hong kong, and the optics industry in germany?

at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing.

with investment information, risks, fees and expenses vo: to the elegant trim es in each and every piece, bold will make your reality a dream. a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪

let me finish tonight with this. it is something watching this

2016 presidential campaign getunder way. there is bill clinton, out there, shaping the battlefield. burying old opponents, sounding the bugle. get on board if you can, get out of way if you can't. james car ville said it. never such a prohibitive favorite for president as hillary clinton today. that may be a bit of an overstate. you have to figure george washington was a good bet after defeating the british, not off by much. the mere prospect of hillary is enough to send republicans helter skelter. don't underestimate rand paul, by the way. just the kind of candidate that parties do run when they are up against someone like ril hillary clinton. when republicans couldn't beat lyndon johnson, they ran barry goldwater, when the democrats couldn't beat richard nixon they ran george mcgovern.